June Perry on fri 30 aug 02
Here is an empirical match for FRIT 3110 that I did on Tony Hansen's
software. It would be better to reformulate the recipe itself, than trying to
make up separate batches of this frit substitute.
Yes, frits are expensive, but when you calculate how little is in each pot
you glaze, you talking of a few extra pennies.
I think it's better to raise the price of you mug by 10 or 20 cents than to
try to use this substitute. You'll notice all that soluble soda ash which can
present some problems.
If you calculate the whole recipe, it might be possible to avoid the soda
ash; but maybe not. It depends on the whether or not the recipe calls for
more sodium through Nepheline Syenite or Potspar etc.
FRIT 3110 SUBSTITUTE:
13.20 CUSTER FELDSPAR
7.10 WHITING
39.80 SODA ASH
35.33 SILICA
4.57 BORAX
Regards,
June
June Perry on sat 31 aug 02
Ababi,
You may have not read my note thoroughly. I mentioned that I used Tony
Hansen's program to calculate the frit. I also mentioned the inherent
problems of using such a recipe and suggested that frits are the better way
to go.
Perhaps my use of empirical formula was incorrect. It's the term I use when I
take a formula down to the molecular equivalents and bring it to a
unity.formula. Tony's Insight program does that job in the blink of an eye
for me (My reward for years of hard math calculations! LOL)
Regards,
June Perry
Ababi on sun 1 sep 02
No June,I read your letter.
The greatness of Tony Hansen's system to convert recipes, materials the way you
do, using the molecular weight, ignoring the amount of grams , is great, when you
know how to use it.
I had "on hand" a result of test. I made it because my community could not find frit
2120 that I used and it was an excellent example of the bad results might be caused
by soluble materials.
If I was in the beginning, and read your words, belive me June, I would test this
substitute.
I wanted to save the misery of ruined wares from "High School Teacher".
This evening ( when you will have your lunch break) I will upload the most beautiful
glaze I made with about 40% soda bicarbonate but this is a different story.
In matrix in the slow way, less than a minute substitution for 3110 must be a
difference because of sight difference in the analysis
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Cone deg.C. -
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
SODA ASH 23.26
Calcium Carbonate 9.90
EPK Kaolin 8.40
Borax 13.37
SILICA 56.57
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Seger Weight%
KNO 0.71 17.32%
CaO 0.29 6.31%
MgO 0.00 0.01%
Al2O3 0.09 3.66%
P2O5 0.00 0.02%
B2O3 0.10 2.82%
SiO2 3.00 69.82%
TiO2 0.00 0.04%
K2O 0.03 0.99%
Na2O 0.68 16.34%
Al:Si 32.33
Expan. 10.94
So I have both and I chose a cording to the need.
Ababi Sharon
Glaze addict
Kibbutz Shoval Israel
localpotter@walla.co.il
http://members4.clubphoto.com/ababi306910/
http://www.milkywayceramics.com/cgallery/asharon.htm
---------- Original Message ----------
>Ababi,
>You may have not read my note thoroughly. I mentioned that I used Tony
>Hansen's program to calculate the frit. I also mentioned the inherent
>problems of using such a recipe and suggested that frits are the better way
>to go.
>Perhaps my use of empirical formula was incorrect. It's the term I use when I
>take a formula down to the molecular equivalents and bring it to a
>unity.formula. Tony's Insight program does that job in the blink of an eye
>for me (My reward for years of hard math calculations! LOL)
>Regards,
>June Perry
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
June Perry on sun 1 sep 02
Hi Ababi,
I'll have to read it later. Right now I have mom soaking in sea salt so I'm
running back and forth.
I'll have to print out your figures and check it againt Insight. At first
glance, I don't think your 210 figure from putting in 1 gram of frit 3110
relates to gram weight.
I'll have to see if I can figure that out myself or ask Tony ; but first I
need to find time to read and absorb it.
OK, Mom is out of tub and dressed. I just moved her down to Florida from New
York. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer last month and told she has 6
months to live, so these days I'm devoting all my time to taking care of her
and giving her as much joy as I can. The little time I have to myself is
mostly spent on the computer, which I have right outside her bedroom, so I'm
here if she needs anything. Once in a while I get to walk out to our dock
and fish for a half hour while she's still sleeping. Pottery and others
things will always be here waiting.
You're right, it is a bit tricky when you deal in a language that is not your
primary language; but I laud you greatly for even trying! English, I'm sad to
say, is my only language. In school all I was taught was Latin and that has
disappeared from my brain decades ago!
I put my notes below in larger print to make it easier for you to find them.
Now getting back to what you did, you typed:
Recipe one
WSfrit 3110 substitution
====================
FRIT 3110........... 1.00 100.00%
========
1.00
CaO 0.29* 6.30%
K2O 0.06* 2.31%
Na2O 0.64* 15.29%
Al2O3 0.09 3.72%
B2O3 0.10 2.59%
SiO2 3.03 69.80%
Si:Al 31.88
SiB:Al 32.91
Expan 10.37
Recipe two
WSfrit 3110 substitution
=================
CRYOLITE............ 59.57 28.35%
BORAX............... 18.50 8.81%
WOLLASTONITE........ 34.05 16.21%
SODA ASH............ 89.14 42.43%
PEARL ASH CALCINED.. 8.84 4.21%
========
210.10
****What you did here was make a whole new recipe. This 210.10 is not the
weight of the oxides in this recipe, it's the gram weight of the materials
you list (the amount of grams in that substitute recipe for frit 3110). You
can bring that to 100 just by using the program.
When I recalculate a program to match empirically, it will always give me
gram weight more or less and I have to bring it back to 100 grams. That won't
change the empirical formula. It just makes it easier for comparison,
weighing, etc.
CaO 0.29 17.06%
K2O 0.06 6.26%
Na2O 0.64 41.41%
Al2O3 0.09 9.98%
B2O3 0.10 7.01%
SiO2 0.29 18.28%
Text1 24.75
Si:Al 3.11
SiB:Al 4.14
Expan 22.11
So insight IGNORES the fact that I had only one gram of 3110 and gives me
210.1
something and give me strange result.....
now I will go back to Insight and write on recipe two ro unity and the number
1
***It gave adds up 210.1for the reason I wrote above. You can bring it to
100 just by calling up that recipe that say 210.1 and then erasing the 210.1
and typing in 100 and click enter twice and that will change all the weights
of each ingredient to bring it up to a 100 gram recipe. There is also a pull
down button under the calc button on the software where you can just hit
which gives you the option to bring it to 100 automatically.
WSUntitled Recipe 2
=================
CRYOLITE............ 0.28 28.35%
BORAX............... 0.09 8.81%
WOLLASTONITE........ 0.16 16.21%
SODA ASH............ 0.42 42.43%
PEARL ASH CALCINED.. 0.04 4.21%
========
1.00
CaO 0.29* 17.06%
K2O 0.06* 6.26%
Na2O 0.64* 41.41%
Al2O3 0.09 9.98%
B2O3 0.10 7.01%
SiO2 0.29 18.28%
Text1 24.75
Si:Al 3.11
SiB:Al 4.14
Expan 22.11
As you can see, either way, with both the 100 gram and 210.1 gram batches,
you have the same empirical formula, the same ratios of Alumina and silica,
same expansion, etc. Whether you weigh out the 210.1 recipe or the 100 gram
recipe, you'd get the same fired results.
When I learned glaze recipe from Vivika Heino (the hard way, without
computers), the first gram figures you get in the new recipe will be a
batch formula which is never 100%. Then you take the total and divide it into
each material and then multiply by 100 to get it to add up to a 100% formula.
So if you divide your total of 21.1 into your first material and multiply the
result by 100, you will come up with 28.35 or 28.36 which is the number I got
doing it manually.
Since we're only trying to duplicate one material for him, it doesn't matter
whether we make it 1 gram, 100 grams or 1000 grams, since he will only use
the amount he needs in his recipe to substitute frit 3110.
As I eluded in my first post on this subject, I think it's penny wise and
pound foolish to try to avoid using the frits since you're only talking of a
few extra pennies for each pot glazed and that is easily compensated for by
just adding the cost to the pot, rather than have to deal with these soluble
materials like soda ash,etc.
These software programs have made life wonderful for us potters who like to
play around with glaze testing!
Regards,
June
Ron Roy on mon 2 sep 02
Just a few thoughts on this subject,
First of all 3110 is a very difficult frit to sub for because it is so high
in alkalies (17.6 KNaO) and so low in B2O3 ( 2.6%) - aside from making your
own frit I don't see how it can be done without using solubles - which is
what fritting is all about.
If the problem is availability of 3110 then:
Fusion frit 75 is a good sub and so is Pemco P-1V04
RR
Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513
| |
|
